Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-21/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html The cases you are referring to are patent case...

"propose" != "order". The original order included what should be posted, which differed slightly from what Judge Jacob proposed. Biriss' order stated "The following notice shall be posted" and detailed what the notice would contain. The appeal ruling order the notice to be posted but only made a proposal as to what it should include (which added the details that it was upheld on appeal and was Europe wide). It was not ordered to contain exactly that information. In...

If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification....

In other words you completely made up the part about the ruling saying nothing more and nothing less. They were instructed what the notice had to included. These instructions said nothing about that having to be the entirety of the posting. One can assume the judge meant nothing more, but that would be an assumption.

Nope. Apple didn't sue Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple and Apple countersued. But during the trial Samsung got pissy about Apple's comments about Samsung copying them. So Judge Biriss ordered the notice be published. What is interesting is that the appeals court judges said that they would not have allowed the order to force Apple to post the notice to stand, except that when Biriss made his original ruling he made a comment about Samsung not be cool. This...

I included the beer for this reason: Apple included additional facts, some of which were from the court itself. There is no reason to think a court would not want details of it's decision included in the posting of the decision. Just like there is no reason for the son to think the father would be angry about the beer.

It was a bad analogy. There was no reason for Apple to think the additional facts would upset the court. Most of the additional statements came from the UK court itself. The last one added factual context to the issue. Your analogy would be better if the son brought his father a beer with his sandwich and the father beats the boy for suggesting he is an alcoholic.

One could argue that the expectation was that the statement would contain only the text specified by the court, but one would have to argue that without any actual facts supporting that. Maybe I missed it (very possible) but I can find nothing in the ruling that supports the idea that Apple was not allowed to write the notice themselves and expect only to paste the suggested text.